GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman speaks during a televised debate at the Tech Museum in San Jose, Calif. on Sunday, May 2, 2010. Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman squared off in their second debate as each vies to become the GOP nominee for California's governor.

Meg Whitman's claim that she is the right governor for austere times - that she is a leader who can produce more with less - is undermined by the excesses of her checkbook campaign. If the business acumen and marketing savvy that brought her such fabulous wealth can translate so seamlessly to politics, then why does the former eBay CEO have to spend $80 million and counting, nearly four times as much as her rival Steve Poizner, in pursuit of the Republican nomination? Her campaign is spending as lavishly as the state did when capital-gains dollars were rolling in during the late 1990s. Yet at last check, her lead was sinking toward single digits.

It's easy to look good when money is no object. Remember, before the dot-com bust, before the energy crisis, before the economy went south, Gov. Gray Davis was being praised effusively in national magazines and mentioned as a potential presidential contender.

Meg Whitman is running a 1999-style, big-spending campaign to persuade a state that she is the master of efficiency. It just doesn't click. What is wrong here: The marketing or the product? Or both?

Whitman is paying big bucks for horrible advice.

I would not expect the advisers who are cashing her checks to tell her that there are limits to what money will buy in politics. But she is not being well served by strategists who think that a newcomer to California politics can buy her way past the vetting processes that voters have come to expect.

Whitman has rationed her access to journalists to a degree not seen in modern California history. She has allowed interviews with only selected reporters, and has declined endorsement interviews with many newspapers - including The Chronicle. This is not about avoiding the "filter" of the news media. Our newspaper is among many that routinely post the full video of endorsement interviews for high-level offices such as governor. The video gives voters a chance to see candidates answer questions in a setting where they can expand at length - and there are no restrictions on follow-up questions. Voters have an opportunity to assess not only the substance of the answers, but the relevance and fairness of the journalists' inquiries.

Obviously, the questions and the audience are much different in Redding, San Francisco, San Diego and Bakersfield. A candidate who goes through this process is tested for depth, breadth and consistency.

Steve Poizner, in blue jeans and blazer, went through this process with neither fear nor complaint. So did U.S. Senate GOP candidates Tom Campbell and Carly Fiorina, another former CEO and newcomer to politics. Fiorina handled questions with grace, grit and substance. Chuck DeVore, the Tea Party Republican in the Senate race, joked at the start of our editorial board meeting that a Chronicle endorsement might work against him with his conservative base. Still, he took on the questions and made his case with guile and detail. Links to video of all those interviews are available at sfgate.com/endorsements.

Whitman's refusal to subject herself to a full range of scrutiny - not just with editorial boards - raises serious questions about her suitability for elective office. It is an affront to voters who deserve more than soft-focus 30-second TV spots when choosing a governor in this perilous time. She may not like uncomfortable situations where she is not in control and pressed on difficult issues, but that is exactly what a governor confronts on a daily basis when dealing with legislative leaders.

The latest polls suggest that Whitman's 30,000-foot, too-clever strategy is starting to work against her. Voters do not want to be marketed a brand - they want to fully assess the qualities of people who lead them. They are also right to ask how a campaign with seemingly unlimited resources establishes a foundation for a successful administration in a state of scarcity where the deficits are too great to be erased by any billionaire's checkbook.